HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Web-only Table Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Reynolds, T M Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Reynolds, T M Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Down Syndrome Genetic Testing High Risk Pregnancy Prenatal Testing Related Collections Other Ethics Genetics Screening Perinatal

Down’s syndrome screening is unethical: views of today’s research ethics committees

Correspondence to:
Professor T Reynolds, Clinical Chemistry Department, Queen’s Hospital, Belvedere Road, Burton on Trent, Staffordshire DE13 0RB, UK;
Tim.Reynolds{at}Queens.Burtonh-tr.wmids.nhs.uk Background: Screening for Down’s syndrome forms part of routine obstetric practice. Ethical considerations relating to genetic screening form a major part of the workload of research ethics committees. This study investigated the attitudes of research ethics committee members to several conditions varying in clinical severity and prognosis, including Down’s syndrome.

Methods: The members of 40 randomly chosen research ethics committees were surveyed. A simple questionnaire comprising 19 clinical scenarios based around four "clinical" conditions was designed to review conditions that were potentially embarrassing, affecting life span but not mental ability, premature death, and intellectual impairment with a risk of neonatal cardiac defects (Down’s syndrome). Screening tests with different degrees of effectiveness were described and the diagnostic test descriptions ranged from having no risk to an unaffected fetus to causing spontaneous abortion of two normal fetuses for each affected fetus identified. Replies were graded on a scale of 1 to 5.

Results: Seventy seven replies were received from 28 different research ethics committees. Screening was supported for treatment of a life threatening condition (95% in favour) but screening for conditions of a slight increase in premature death (14% in favour) or cosmetic features (10% in favour) were considered unethical. Views were ambiguous (49% in favour) about conditions involving significant shortening of lifespan. Down’s syndrome screening was considered more ethical when described as a serious condition (56% in favour) than when the clinical features were described (44% in favour). Once increased rates of spontaneous abortion on confirmatory testing were added, 79% (21% in favour) and 86% (14% in favour) stated that screening was unethical (for "serious" and "clinical features" descriptions, respectively).

Conclusions: Down’s syndrome screening raises ethical concerns about genetic testing in general that need to be dealt with before the introduction of any prenatal screening test.

Keywords: Down’s syndrome; ethics; trisomy 21

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. H. Bittles, C. Bower, R. Hussain, and E. J. Glasson The four ages of Down syndrome Eur J Public Health, April 1, 2007; 17(2): 221 - 225. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. I.J. Wildschut, T.J. Peters, and C. P. Weiner Screening in women's health, with emphasis on fetal Down's syndrome, breast cancer and osteoporosis Hum. Reprod. Update, September 1, 2006; 12(5): 499 - 512. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				The public must decide whether genetic screening is ethical J. Med. Ethics, February 1, 2004; 30(1): 62 - 62. [Full Text] [PDF]